I am fairly new to photography and would like to ask for your wise advise on some gear I plan on getting in 2 weeks.

Why two-weeks?

Its by birthday also ill be going to Amsterdam for business

First of all my the subjects i like to shoot are Landscapes, My kids Kids activities (dance) and some street and travel photography.

So a wide mix.

Yes. I want a body good enough to handle pretty much anything other than fast action sports.

My budget is 2000-2300$ I'm not looking for a full kit of lenses for that $ but merely to start off with 1 or 2max and build over time. So i'm willing to go as much as 1500-2k $on the body and build the collection of lenses, flashes and tripod from there.

So far iv had the following cameras in the last few months the Sony NEX6 and the Nikon D5100 but iv sold both because i want something better. I really haven't decided if is should go for a Sony A7 or fuji X system or something like the D7100 or Canon 70D. Maybe even a used 600/610 or a 6D. Since i have no lenses i am free to start from scratch.

Something better tells us very little. Better is subjective. A constantly have classes full of people buying better and better cameras because they want better images. Problem is, that isn't how it works.

By better, i would prefer full frame

What would you wise people recommend for me. What would you get on that budget if you had 0 gear?Thank you so much for your advise.

Here is the key to image hierarchy from the most important to the least….

1) Your knowledge. This by far an away trumps everything else. If I give the right tools to a mechanic, they can fix my car. Give me those same tools and the car isn't getting fixed. It isn't the tool, it's the knowledge to use the tools.

2) The Light. I don't care how much money you spend on a camera body, they all do the same thing using the same EV tables. A camera records an exposure, they record light. The camera has absolutely nothing to do with the quality, direction, color, intensity or contrast of your light. NOTHING. The only thing the camera does is record the light.

3) The Lens. It's fairly important because it first gathers the light (and some lenses gather a lot more than others) and then focuses the light onto the camera sensor. A common kit lens is in the range of 18-55mm. That lens new might be around $200. The professional version of that lens will go for north of $1000. What's the difference? The professional versions lets in anywhere from twice to four times more light.

4) The Camera. Dead last because the camera is only a tool you use to record the light. And they all essentially work the same way.

That all said, what will be infinitely more important than the camera body will be the lenses you need. A dance recital is tricky business to shoot and near impossible with any kit lens. The general purpose lens for events will be the 70-200 f/2.8. This lens alone will chew up a great deal of your budget. Both the Canon and Nikon versions of this one lens alone will be about $2400. There goes your budget. At which point you begin to make compromises. Keeping in mind that you have to understand everything involved in order to make intelligent compromises. And this is where it gets really muddy because everyone's opinion will be a different set of compromises.

First, I would simply stick with Canon or Nikon as that is what most have and you can't put a price on peer-to-peer support. And you will have the most third party options as well. From there, work backwards on lens selection. The OEM version of the 70-200 will be out of your budget. That leaves Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina. You are looking at roughly $1250-1500 for that lens.That leaves about $900 give or take. I might suggest heading down to your local camera store and get an idea of what that will get you. Hold the Canon camera kit in that price range. As well as the Nikon. As you have discovered, you might like the feel of one over the other. And in terms of image quality, well the light and the lens play a far larger role than whatever camera you choose.

Like i said my budget is 2300 in 2 weeks. not forever, i plan on adding more lenses etc as time goes by. I want a good body to start with. I do understand the concept of fast glass. My question is... would a 70-200 F4 constant be good enough if i shoot wide open on a camera that can handle iso 3200 with ease and almost no noise?